Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
01/25/2018 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB267 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 267-RELEASE HUNTING/FISHING RECORDS TO MUNI
8:12:19 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 267, "An Act requiring the release of certain
records relating to big game hunters, guided hunts, and guided
sport fishing activities to municipalities for verification of
taxes payable; and providing for an effective date."
8:13:30 AM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 267 on behalf of Representative
Edgmon, prime sponsor. He paraphrased the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
For boroughs and other municipalities that bring in
revenues through levies on fish and game guiding, HB
267 will provide a tool to help confirm that
activities within their jurisdictions subject to
taxation are being accurately reported to them. The
bill would allow municipalities access to certain
records collected by the state that relate to big game
hunters, guided hunts, and guided sport fishing for
the purpose of verifying taxes payable. All such
information would remain confidential.
The access that HB 267 permits municipalities is
modeled after long-existing provisions in AS
16.05.815(a)(4) and AS 43.75.133, both of which allow
local governments to review certain records, reports,
and returns to verify payment of local commercial
fishing taxes.
With state-government cutbacks resulting in greater
responsibilities and costs being borne by local
governments, all necessary resources should be made
available to our municipalities to ensure they are
receiving the revenues due to them according to their
local ordinances.
8:15:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how reductions in state agency
budgets have affected local municipalities' ability to collect
local taxes.
MR. CLARK answered, "It's not so much that actions by the state
have impeded their ability to collect taxes; it's more that,
given the state's fiscal challenges, there have been ... greater
costs shifted to local governments." By providing a means for
municipalities "to track down and collect those delinquent
taxes," the state can help municipalities "make up for other
areas where revenues that may have flowed from the state now
don't flow."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification that there is no
direct link between state reductions having affected the ability
of local governments to perform, but that [HB 267] addresses
situations wherein local municipalities have not been collecting
local taxes and are looking "everywhere they can for money to
cushion, including collecting their own taxes."
MR. CLARK answered that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined, "That's reasonable."
8:16:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS observed that in the committee
packet there is a document from the Lake Peninsula Borough
indicating that the borough would benefit under HB 267. He
asked if there was a list of all the local governments in Alaska
that "have such revenue measures" and would benefit under HB
267.
MR. CLARK answered that is a work in progress. He said both the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) would be
affected by HB 267. He noted that Representative Edgmon's
office has been working toward tracking down municipalities
[that would benefit under HB 267] and, thus far, the office
thinks the Borough of Yakutat, the Kodiak Island Borough, the
Aleutians East Borough, and the Borough of Sitka may benefit.
He added that that information has not yet been substantiated.
8:18:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how much money would be "picked up"
under HB 267.
MR. CLARK answered that upcoming testimony from an officer of
the Lake and Peninsula Borough would include an estimate. He
offered his understanding that $50,000-$100,000 might be
"forgone revenue." He added that the access provided under HB
267 would not recover all of that, but hopefully it would
recover a significant portion.
8:20:25 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS0808\D.1, Bullard, 1/16/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 5 - 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 08.54.760(b) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, hunt records received under this section
and activity reports received under AS 08.54.650 are
confidential and not subject to inspection or copying
under AS 40.25.110 - 40.25.125. Aggregated data
compiled from hunt records and activity reports may be
included in reports by the department. The department
shall make hunt records and activity reports available
(1) if requested, to state agencies, federal law
enforcement agencies, and other law enforcement
agencies; and (2) to a municipality that levies a tax
on those activities, if the municipality
(A) requests the records for the purpose of
verifying taxes payable; and
(B) agrees to maintain the confidentiality
of the records."
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "amended"
Insert "repealed and reenacted"
8:20:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:20:49 AM
MR. CLARK spoke to Amendment 1. He said it would make changes
to Section 1 of HB 267 by providing confidentiality for hunting
records in the same manner as the state agency itself maintains
that confidentiality. In response to Co-Chair Parish, Mr. Clark
spoke to the fiscal impact of Amendment 1. He said the fiscal
note from DCCED is approximately $88,000 in the first year and
$76,000 in outgoing years, annually. He offered his
understanding that DCCED's fiscal note was based on the
assumption that confidentiality would not be maintained, in
which case the department would have to "go through thousands of
redactions of certain portions of reports every year," which
would be time-consuming. Amendment 1 would ensure
confidentiality would be maintained "just as their own agency
maintains it"; therefore, costs should be significantly reduced.
8:23:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if there is anything
analogous in state law such that confidential or privileged
state information is shared with agents of local governments.
MR. CLARK answered that there are long-standing statutes that
provide municipalities access to commercial fishing records and
reports, and even tax returns, for the purpose of verifying tax
payable to a municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if there has ever been a
problem with that information being leaked.
MR. CLARK answered not to his knowledge, but deferred to the Tax
Division to provide a definitive answer. He noted that under
Title 11, two areas in statute outline the legal consequences to
a public servant who breaches confidentiality, and those
consequences are serious; it is a Class A Misdemeanor. He
stated for the record that [the bill sponsor] feels that local
municipal officials should be afforded "the same assumption of
professionalism and integrity that state employees enjoy."
8:25:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to "state agencies", "federal
law enforcement agencies", and "other law enforcement agencies",
[as shown on page 1, lines 7-8, of HB 267], and he asked for
confirmation that "that includes state law enforcement
agencies."
MR. CLARK offered his understanding that is the case.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER remarked that the term "state agencies"
is a broad one. He asked, "Can I properly interpret that to
mean just agencies related to hunting, fishing, and guiding
activities?"
MR. CLARK deferred to DCCED. He added, "From what I do know
about it, it's often used to inform the annual reports that
people in one division or another might be compiling, in which
case what would be divulged from the information they've
provided would be in a more general content, as opposed to
specific."
8:27:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND indicated she is from a municipality
where the following records are open for anyone to see: the
property owner; the location of the property; how much is owed
on the property in taxes; whether those taxes have been payed;
and "who doesn't have hunting or fishing fees within the
municipality." She stated her understanding that according to
the municipal code from the Lake and Peninsula Borough [included
in the committee packet], bed taxes are being collected "per
guest" of each [hunting and fishing] guide. She said she does
not understand why that information needs to be kept
confidential.
MR. CLARK responded that within the aforementioned code, the
borough has a permit fee in addition to the bed tax. The permit
fee applies to the activity of hunting and fishing. He stated,
"The reason bed taxes appear there is because there's a
differentiation between how a guiding outfit would be charged."
He explained that a lodge is considered more analogous to a
hotel, because the amenities offered are similar. Conversely,
when guests stay in tents or more primitive accommodations,
"they" are not liable for bed taxes; "so, they have their charge
- the hunting and fishing guiding tax - at a slightly higher
level." He offered his understanding that the bed tax for the
first scenario is "one dollar per person per day"; whereas, the
[tax on the guiding fee] is $3 per day when there is no bed tax
involved.
MR. CLARK noted that the financial officer from the Lake and
Peninsula Borough was available for testimony and could clarify
information for Representative Drummond.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked Representative Drummond if she was
maintaining an objection [to Amendment 1] until further
information was provided.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND answered in the affirmative.
8:32:03 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his understanding that one reason for
keeping people's hunting and fishing records confidential is
because the locations for hunting and fishing can be "a little
bit of a trade secret." Further, he maintained, "It's useful to
maintain confidentiality where ... possible, just for the sake
of safeguarding people's privacy." He added, "It is in line
with currently existing law."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND responded, "If that's the case, then
I'll remove my objection."
8:33:23 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:33 a.m. to 8:34 a.m.
8:34:47 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH said under current law the records must be kept
confidential by the department, which requires additional staff
"to redact approximately 4,000 records per year." He explained
that Amendment 1 would shift the onus of maintaining
confidentiality to the municipalities and make the agreement to
protect that confidentiality a prerequisite to receiving the
records. He echoed the previous comment by Mr. Clark that the
state should afford municipalities every confidence it does its
state officials. He added, "I believe that people all
throughout the state are serving in government because they feel
like it's the right thing to do."
8:36:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he would like to know what penalties
would be applied to a local municipal official, who might
violate confidentiality provisions, in order to ensure the same
safeguards and protections are in place.
MR. CLARK said legal counsel has assured him that would be the
case.
8:38:01 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal
and Research Services, Alaska State Legislature, cited relevant
statute that applies to public servants: AS 11.56.850,
regarding official misconduct; and AS 11.56.860, regarding
misuse of confidential information. He said "public servants"
include employees of local government.
8:38:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if the intent of the committee is
to "pass or fail ... Amendment [1] today."
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said the intention is to take action on
Amendment 1 today to be able to take up other amendments on
Saturday. He noted that Amendment 1 was proffered by the prime
sponsor in order "to clean up the fiscal note" and address any
concerns regarding confidentiality.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER remarked on the quantity of information
in the committee packet and asked, "Do we need all this just to
figure out whether it's a dollar or three dollars?" He
suggested that if the answer is no, then everything could be
included in "one column." He said, "It seems like it would cost
a fortune to deliver this kind of paperwork to a municipality."
8:40:42 AM
MR. CLARK answered that in fact, the opposite is true: It is
much less a burden for the state agency to deliver that
digitized data than it would be for the agency to be required
"to manually redact a great amount of data included in the
report." He stated, "The assurance of confidentiality backed up
by law ... is a significant cost savings factor." He said "we"
have every confidence that municipalities will act with
"professionalism and integrity and within the law."
8:44:25 AM
TOM BROOKOVER, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), in response to Representative
Rauscher's restated concern, related that currently sport
fishing business owners and guides are required by regulation to
register with the department before conducting sport fishing or
guide services. Guides are required by regulation to complete a
log book, currently available in paper form and soon available
electronically. He said the required information in the log
book includes: Division of Motor Vehicle (DMV) boat
registration or United States Coast Guard (USCG) documentation
numbers for vessels used to provide guides services; locations
where the guide services where provided; fishing effort, catch,
and harvest by clients; license numbers of each client; names of
clients that saltwater fish; and other information, primarily
catch and harvest of fish species by client. Mr. Brookover said
the paper forms are scanned, so all information ends up in
electronic form in a database. He stated his assumption that it
would be most efficient to provide the entire database for the
records requested by municipalities; however, he said he also
thinks there could be reports generated that would "filter the
data, so to speak, to the information the municipality
requires."
MR. BROOKOVER, in response to Representative Rauscher, clarified
that he is certain the division could develop a reporting
feature to accommodate a municipality that requested the
information in one column. In response to follow-up questions,
he said ADF&G has provided a fiscal note. He said there was
speculation as to the number of municipalities that might make
such a request; the fiscal note was determined based on three
known municipalities, the total one-time start-up cost of
approximately 9.1 thousand dollars, and a recurring annual cost
of approximately $2,000. The latter costs, he explained, would
cover "less than a few days of work to compile the records"
requested by the [municipalities]. If the number of
municipalities increased from three to six, then the fiscal note
would double.
8:50:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted she had gleaned from the Lake and
Peninsula Borough municipal code that the borough already
provides confidentiality in terms of "any records that it takes
to comply with the requirements of the ordinance in collecting
tax data." She directed attention to page 4 of the borough's
information and read, "The information shall be kept
confidential, except when its production is required in official
borough, state, federal investigation law enforcement acts and
in court proceedings. All associated data obtained from
professional guides are confidential and shall be kept from
inspection of all persons except officers, agents, and employees
of the borough." She offered her understanding that [the
borough's municipal code] "provides the privacy needed." She
noted that the borough may also publish statistics concerning
"the information contained" if the publication is done in a
manner where the information cannot be identified.
Representative Drummond stated she is confident that Lake and
Peninsula Borough already has the confidentiality measures in
place, and she said she does not think "the date needs to be
redacted as has been discussed here."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated her support of the amendment as a
means to protect tax payers "in any borough or municipality that
may not have a similar confidentiality agreement."
8:52:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
8:52:12 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER announced that there being no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:52:58 AM
NATHAN HILL, Manager, Lake and Peninsula Borough, stated that
the borough supports HB 267. He relayed that both hunting and
fishing professional guides are required to register with the
borough and pay a fee per [client] per day for guiding within
borough boundaries. Further, the borough imposes tax for "this
and other commercial activities"; the tax applies "on all
lands." He stated that without access to the reports, the
borough has no way to independently verify that the activity has
been reported correctly. He asked the committee to support
passage of HB 267.
8:54:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Hill for an estimate of the
total fees typically brought in by the borough in a year and how
HB 267 might change that number.
MR. HILL deferred to the borough's finance officer.
8:55:06 AM
SUSAN EDWARDS, Finance Officer, Lake and Peninsula Borough, said
currently the borough collects approximately $60,000 a year in
guide taxes, and she estimated that with access to the database
[proposed under HB 267], the borough's revenue would increase by
about $50,000 to $100,000. She added, "That's based on ...
statistical analysis of current guides' tax returns and reports
by guides themselves of activity in the borough that they know
is not being reported to us."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the borough would incur any
additional costs in maintaining the confidentiality of records
or "to do any redaction."
MR. HILL responded no.
MS. EDWARDS interjected that the borough has worked hard to
develop relationships with all the professional guides it knows
are operating in the borough. She said, "We understand that
these records are viewed by them as proprietary information."
She stated that since the reporting from guides has, to this
point, been voluntary, it is vital that the borough can assure
the guides that the information will remain strictly
confidential [under the proposed legislation].
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked, "Does maintaining that
confidentiality cost you anything?"
MS. EDWARDS answered no. She noted that the borough is small;
the entire department consists of two employees; everything is
"kept behind lock and key." She stated, "We are bound by the
strictures of borough code, and certainly the amendment to this
bill, so confidentiality on our part is not going to add to our
costs, and it's something ... we ... very much want to maintain
and to assure our tax payers."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained he was concerned that the state
may be pushing the cost to the municipality, and he said he is
glad to hear that would not be the case.
8:59:25 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER opened public testimony on HB 267.
8:59:54 AM
JON ERICKSON, Manager, City and Borough of Yakutat, noted that
Yakutat has the smallest population of any borough but is 6,000
square miles in size. Yakutat's sales tax is 5 percent, and its
bed tax is 8 percent. He said the City and Borough of Yakutat
must guard against missing out on revenue because of "people
coming into the borough and not reporting the activity." He
reported that last year the City and Borough of Yakutat got
approximately $37,000 in bed tax; it defines a bed as a stay
overnight, so it does not have to be a fixed location. He said
the borough runs 200 miles north and 150 miles south; much of
the area in the north can be accessed by plane without officials
ever knowing anyone is there.
MR. ERICKSON said he keeps many confidential records, such as
personnel records and Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPA) information, and he views the issue of
confidentiality seriously. He indicated the only reason he
would look at confidential records is if there is activity going
on in the borough that someone has not reported. In that case,
Mr. Erickson explained, he would try to find out why there was
no report. He added, "But I'm not going to give this out to
people and say, 'He's got this great, hot fishing spot.'"
MR. ERICKSON related that the City and Borough of Yakutat lost
its Fish & Wildlife trooper and wrote out 150 fish and game
tickets, but all the revenue from those tickets goes to ADF&G.
He stated, "I am scrambling, as a borough manager, to do what I
can to try and make ends meet, and this would be a great
opportunity for me."
9:03:27 AM
MR. ERICKSON, in response to Co-Chair Fansler, explained that he
sends his police force of four to enforce [fish and game] laws
for the sake of the citizens of the City and Borough of Yakutat.
9:04:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that Mr. Erickson had said
reductions within ADF&G had resulted in there being no wildlife
trooper in the City and Borough of Yakutat, but that issue is
independent of whether the City and Borough of Yakutat collects
local taxes.
MR. ERICKSON answered yes - "kind of." He explained:
I've been contacted ... by ... Fish & Wildlife
troopers in Cordova, and they said, "John, you've got
something going on 150 miles north of you, and they
aren't registered." ... So, they're telling me this,
but they're not officially telling me this .... So,
would I be able to enforce the law and raise that $36-
$37,000 to [$76,000] - I'm hoping.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded, "Yeah, if 'John Law' is known
to be in the area, people will A) probably follow the fishing
regulations, and B) probably report ... their revenues. So,
there's an indirect connection."
MR. ERICKSON indicated some "fishing losses" have "gone way down
since we've done that." In response to Representative Saddler,
he confirmed he thinks the bill would result in an increase [in
tax revenue] to $76,000. He said the City and Borough of
Yakutat has the highest bed tax in the state and, with its sales
tax, it currently makes $13 for every $100.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER summarized that Mr. Erickson was saying
that the increase to $76,000 would be on the bed tax; there
would be "an indeterminate amount of increase" in the sales tax.
MR. ERICKSON answered, "That's my hope."
9:06:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND suggested the use of drones.
MR. ERICKSON expressed concern regarding privacy.
9:06:54 AM
SARA CHAMBERS, Operations Manager, Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing (DCBPL), Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), stated that
the division submitted a fiscal note, and she specified that it
is DCBPL, not ADF&G, that manages the hunt records and
transporter activity reports she said were circulated by
Representative Rauscher. She continued as follows:
I wanted to be able to inform the committee - since we
raised the confidentiality issue - that the records
that were circulated earlier do ... contain quite a
bit of commercial, proprietary information. And we
also, for many years, have maintained those in a
searchable database that is given access only to those
who have been enumerated in the statute. So, if ...
every municipality might request this information,
given the amendment, it reduces our concerns about our
need to maintain that confidentiality, and we would
likely provide access to that database to an
authorized employee of the municipality in question -
the requesting municipality - which would then place
the responsibility on them to mine the database of
those thousands of records to identify which ... ones
pertain to them. They would need to know the guide
use areas that are in their municipality and could
look for it that way or, if they knew specific
individuals, they could look for it that way, as well.
That would be [an] extremely low-cost alternative to
the state but potentially have an impact on their
staffing in doing that research.
MS. CHAMBERS, regarding Representative Rauscher's idea of
creating a report upon demand by any municipality, said such a
task would tax the division's workload and staffing levels. She
emphasized that any cost that would be borne by her office would
be paid for by professional guides and transporters - the
division receives no general fund. She said this program has
already been battling a significant deficit in the last couple
years. She said the current deficit is half a million dollars,
and she reiterated that the cost would not be borne by the state
but "by the constituents who are license through this board."
9:10:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Ms. Chambers if adoption of
Amendment 1, which he said had a fiscal note of $88,400,
nullifies that cost to DCCED.
MS. CHAMBERS answered, "It does take care of much of our
concern, ... with the assumption that we would hand off a user
name and password to the municipalities and say, 'Go find the
information in the database' and ... [there would be] no
reporting impact on our staff."
9:11:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER indicated that he was planning to offer
an amendment that would make municipalities cover the cost
rather than hunters so that the onus would be on "those who are
trying to profit from it" rather than "those that are just
trying to hunt out there in the wild." He said he appreciates
Ms. Chambers having brought up the idea that there is a cost
involved and the state should recover the cost from the
municipality. He reiterated his desire to simplify the data.
9:12:38 AM
LYLE BECKER, Board Member, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association (APHA), related that he has a small hunting outfit,
and he indicated that the proposed legislation would affect him.
He said he thinks [APHA] understands the problem [being
addressed through HB 267], and that is that there are some
guides that are not paying their borough taxes. He said APHA
affirms that guides need to be paying their taxes. He indicated
that part of the problem may be "being overlooked." He
explained that currently there are a lot of guides that operate
on state land that don't necessarily have any requirement to
report back to their land manager. Further, there is currently
no limit to the number of guides that can operate in those
areas, which he surmised may be adding to the general confusion
and "borough chaos."
MR. BECKER expressed concern that [HB 267] would add undue
financial burden to the Big Game Commercial Services Board, and
the guides would ultimately have to shoulder that burden. He
said there have been significant fee increases in the last few
years; "additional fees have been added to individual guides."
He said there is a payoff structure that is supposed to "go down
in time," but indicated that in the meantime there is additional
staff time that is adding to the burden.
MR. BECKER highlighted another concern is regarding privacy. He
stated, "We don't want folks within the borough knowing specific
places where we harvest animals." He relayed that the
information submitted to the Big Game Commercial Services Board
is intended to help wildlife managers manage the game resource,
and "we're a little concerned about clerks getting ahold of that
- especially people who live ... in the area," because that may
compromise trade secrets.
MR. BECKER stated a third concern is regarding jurisdiction of
the borough as it relates to hunting records. He explained that
hunting records state that [guides] have operated in certain
areas; however, in many of the areas, half falls within the
borough and half does not. He offered his understanding that
[under HB 267], hunt records from 20 years ago could be pulled,
and confusion could ensue when trying to determine how much time
was actually spent in the borough and how much outside the
borough. He concluded, "So, just in some way, we're thinking
this might not be the most workable or best proposal to arrive
at with the goal we'd like, which is collecting ... taxes from
those guides that need to be paying them; and we think that
something related to something that addresses the issue of
unlimited guides on state land would be better suited."
9:20:10 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 267.
9:20:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, speaking to Mr. Becker's concern, asked
if there is a better way to scope activities of guides so they
are subject to and pay the taxes while operating within a
municipality but do not have to be subject to taxes when
operating outside of municipal boundaries.
MR. CLARK said a borough could contact the guiding outfit to
find out if the hunting activity was within or without the
borough, thus relying on "the honesty of the guide and nothing
more." He offered his understanding that borough officials do
not rely on more than that for their information. He added,
"So, there would not be a situation where an outfitter would be
charged a tax outside the jurisdiction of the municipality." In
terms of Mr. Becker's remarks, he said he thinks the adoption of
Amendment 1 should "all but eliminate any costs to the DCCED
and, in turn, eliminate any costs to the Big Game Commercial
Services Board." Regarding Mr. Becker's concerns about privacy
and confidentiality, he said, "I think we've discussed that at
great length today, and I believe the integrity and the
professionalism of the borough officials, combined with the
force of law, is something ... I would encourage him to have
greater confidence in."
9:23:53 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER offered his understanding that Ms. Chambers had
said that [municipal officials] would be given a password to log
in "with the confidentiality aspects in there."
MR. CLARK responded, "Certainly that would be the most efficient
and cost-effective way." He indicated that the prime sponsor's
intent is for "the legwork and the man hours" to be the
responsibility of the municipalities rather than the state.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said, "I share that concern." He added that he
appreciates that the adopted Amendment 1 would, hopefully,
alleviate "that undue burden upon the board that is trying to
get its head above water."
[HB 267 was held over.]